Will overuled by judge
Discussion
wolves_wanderer said:
Surely in PH land this would be celebrated. The daughter is on benefits and has now got a lump of inheritance, so saving all the company directors from paying out even more bennies. 
Actually; the BBC reports:bbc said:
She'll now be able to buy her housing association property and won't lose her state benefits.
I can understand the argument that spiteful wills should be able to be challenged however, I am unable to agree with the result from the facts of this case as I've read it. Given the argument that (the mother) hardly knew the charities affected the result; does this mean that that for similar situations they need to 'pay' the charity for N years before death to ensure that the will doesn't get overruled... Look on the bright side. The person who is not in any way affected by this is the deceased. She died secure in the knowledge that she'd got one over her daughter. So a plus point for the woman. The daughter has got a share of the money, so she too has come out ahead.
What's not to like?
When a person dies their interest in the matter ends.
What's not to like?
When a person dies their interest in the matter ends.
It makes me very uncomfortable that judges can over-rule someones dying wishes.
If the mother was a spiteful old hag then so be it that is her choice to give all her money to whomever she wishes.
If she was perfectly capable of making a will and was not coerced then how dare the courts change her decision.
If the mother was a spiteful old hag then so be it that is her choice to give all her money to whomever she wishes.
If she was perfectly capable of making a will and was not coerced then how dare the courts change her decision.
Oh dear oh dear
From the relevant act
"Application for financial provision from deceased’s estate.
(1)Where after the commencement of this Act a person dies domiciled in England and Wales and is survived by any of the following persons:—
(a)the wife or husband of the deceased;
(b)a former wife or former husband of the deceased who has not remarried; "
Yet another reasoning to enhance the fact that never, ever, get married.
From the relevant act
"Application for financial provision from deceased’s estate.
(1)Where after the commencement of this Act a person dies domiciled in England and Wales and is survived by any of the following persons:—
(a)the wife or husband of the deceased;
(b)a former wife or former husband of the deceased who has not remarried; "
Yet another reasoning to enhance the fact that never, ever, get married.
Eric Mc said:
Can this still be appealed or was this the final stage?
The case could in theory go to the Supreme Court, but is I think unlikely to do so, as the decision appears to turn on the facts of the case and raises no new or special principle of law.As for the idea that the decision is unjust to a dead person, that seems to me an odd concept. A dead person can't be harmed. It is possible to trash a dead person's reputation in the eyes of the living, but the dead person doesn't notice, and the dead person certainly doesn't notice what happens to money.
Derek Smith said:
Look on the bright side. The person who is not in any way affected by this is the deceased. She died secure in the knowledge that she'd got one over her daughter. So a plus point for the woman. The daughter has got a share of the money, so she too has come out ahead.
What's not to like?
When a person dies their interest in the matter ends.
This, plus added thisage and a side order of this.What's not to like?
When a person dies their interest in the matter ends.
squicky said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Surely in PH land this would be celebrated. The daughter is on benefits and has now got a lump of inheritance, so saving all the company directors from paying out even more bennies.
Actually; the BBC reports:bbc said:
She'll now be able to buy her housing association property and won't lose her state benefits.
squicky said:
I can understand the argument that spiteful wills should be able to be challenged however, I am unable to agree with the result from the facts of this case as I've read it. Given the argument that (the mother) hardly knew the charities affected the result; does this mean that that for similar situations they need to 'pay' the charity for N years before death to ensure that the will doesn't get overruled...
I think the argument is that if you are genuinely interested enough in a charity to leave your worldly wealth to them there will probably be some evidence of you volunteering or contributing prior to your death.I haven't read the CA decision (!) as I won't understand it. But is the 'reasonable provision' not meant for someone who would reasonably need it ie someone who was dependent on the deceased in some way? - I could see that would make sense (for a court to rule in this way) but in this particular case if the woman is 54 years old she's obviously managed to provide for herself for her adult life.
Breadvan72 said:
La Liga said:
hornetrider said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The daughter eloped with the mother's then partner.
Oh, I missed that bit 
CoolHands said:
I haven't read the CA decision (!) as I won't understand it. But is the 'reasonable provision' not meant for someone who would reasonably need it ie someone who was dependent on the deceased in some way? - I could see that would make sense (for a court to rule in this way) but in this particular case if the woman is 54 years old she's obviously managed to provide for herself for her adult life.
Read the decision! It's written in plain English.Breadvan72 said:
CoolHands said:
I haven't read the CA decision (!) as I won't understand it. But is the 'reasonable provision' not meant for someone who would reasonably need it ie someone who was dependent on the deceased in some way? - I could see that would make sense (for a court to rule in this way) but in this particular case if the woman is 54 years old she's obviously managed to provide for herself for her adult life.
Read the decision! It's written in plain English.
Timmy40 said:
Breadvan72 said:
La Liga said:
hornetrider said:
TEKNOPUG said:
The daughter eloped with the mother's then partner.
Oh, I missed that bit Do they?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff